Explore the vast range of titles available.

Reflects on the effectiveness and unintended consequences of public health measures taken so far to prevent transmission of COVID-19, and to identify challenges ahead. Draws public health learnings from the response to the pandemic that will help reduce the risk of a resurgence of COVID-19 and strengthen disease prevention against a range of other pathogens in the long term. Source: National Library of New Zealand Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa, licensed by the Department of Internal Affairs for re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 New Zealand Licence.

Since the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease (COVID-19) in late 2019, communities have been required to rapidly adopt community mitigation strategies rarely used before, or only in limited settings. This study aimed to examine the attitudes and beliefs of Australian adults towards the COVID-19 pandemic, and willingness and capacity to engage with these mitigation measures. In addition, we aimed to explore the psychosocial and demographic factors that are associated with adoption of recommended hygiene-related and avoidance-related behaviors. A national cross-sectional online survey of 1420 Australian adults (18 years and older) was undertaken between the 18 and 24 March 2020. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. The survey of 1420 respondents found 50% (710) of respondents felt COVID-19 would 'somewhat' affect their health if infected and 19% perceived their level of risk as high or very high. 84·9% had performed ≥1 of the three recommended hygiene-related behaviors and 93·4% performed ≥1 of six avoidance-related behaviors over the last one month. Adopting avoidance behaviors was associated with trust in government/authorities (aOR: 6.0, 95% CI 2.6-11·0), higher perceived rating of effectiveness of behaviors (aOR: 4·0, 95% CI: 1·8-8·7), higher levels of perceived ability to adopt social distancing strategies (aOR: 5.0, 95% CI: 1·5-9.3), higher trust in government (aOR: 6.0, 95% CI: 2.6-11.0) and higher level of concern if self-isolated (aOR: 1.8, 95% CI: 1.1-3.0). In the last two months, members of the public have been inundated with messages about hygiene and social (physical) distancing. However, our results indicate that a continued focus on supporting community understanding of the rationale for these strategies, as well as instilling community confidence in their ability to adopt or sustain the recommendations is needed.

Background As immunisation program launches have previously demonstrated, it is essential that careful planning occurs now to ensure the readiness of the public for a COVID-19 vaccine. As part of that process, this study aimed to understand the public perceptions regarding a future COVID-19 vaccine in Australia. Methods A national cross-sectional online survey of 1420 Australian adults (18 years and older) was undertaken between 18 and 24 March 2020. The statistical analysis of the data included univariate and multivariable logistic regression model analysis. Results Respondents generally held positive views towards vaccination. Eighty percent ( n  = 1143) agreed with the statement that getting myself vaccinated for COVID-19 would be a good way to protect myself against infection . Females ( n  = 614, 83%) were more likely to agree with the statement than males ( n  = 529, 78%) (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1–1.8); P  = 0.03), while 91% of those aged 70 years and above agreed compared to 76% of 18–29-year-olds (aOR = 2.3 (95% CI:1.2–4.1); P  = 0.008). Agreement was also higher for those with a self-reported chronic disease (aOR = 1.4 (95% CI: 1.1–2.0); P  = 0.04) and among those who held private health insurance (aOR = 1.7 (95% CI: 1.3–2.3); P  < 0.001). Beyond individual perceptions, 78% stated that their decision to vaccinate would be supported by family and friends. Conclusion This study presents an early indication of public perceptions towards a future COVID-19 vaccine and represents a starting point for mapping vaccine perceptions. To support an effective launch of these new vaccines, governments need to use this time to understand the communities concerns and to identify the strategies that will support engagement.

Background Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is an infectious disease of global significance, causing a significant health burden in Africa due to complications associated with infection, such as cirrhosis and liver cancer. In Nigeria, which is considered a high prevalence country, estimates of HBV cases are inconsistent, and therefore additional clarity is required to manage HBV-associated public health challenges. Methods A systematic review of the literature (via PubMed, Advanced Google Scholar, African Index Medicus) was conducted to retrieve primary studies published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2019, with a random-effects model based on proportions used to estimate the population-based prevalence of HBV in the Nigerian population. Results The final analyses included 47 studies with 21,702 participants that revealed a pooled prevalence of 9.5%. A prevalence estimate above 8% in a population is classified as high. Sub-group analyses revealed the highest HBV prevalence in rural settings (10.7%). The North West region had the highest prevalence (12.1%) among Nigeria’s six geopolitical zones/regions. The estimate of total variation between studies indicated substantial heterogeneity. These variations could be explained by setting and geographical region. The statistical test for Egger’s regression showed no evidence of publication bias ( p  = 0.879). Conclusions We present an up-to-date review on the prevalence of HBV in Nigeria, which will provide critical data to optimise and assess the impact of current prevention and control strategies, including disease surveillance and diagnoses, vaccination policies and management for those infected.

Background In response to the continuing threat of importing novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), many countries have implemented some form of border restriction. A repercussion of these restrictions has been that some travellers have found themselves stranded abroad unable to return to their country of residence, and in need for government support. Our analysis explores the COVID-19-related information and support options provided by 11 countries to their citizens stranded overseas due to travel restrictions. We also examined the quality (i.e., readability, accessibility, and useability) of the information that was available from selected governments’ web-based resources. Methods Between June 18 to June 30, 2021, COVID-19-related webpages from 11 countries (Australia, New Zealand, Fiji, Canada, United States of America (USA), United Kingdom (UK), France, Spain, Japan, Singapore, and Thailand) were reviewed and content relating to information and support for citizens stuck overseas analysed. Government assistance-related data from each webpage was extracted and coded for the following themes: travel arrangements, health and wellbeing, finance and accommodation, information needs, and sources. Readability was examined using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) and the Flesch Kincaid readability tests; content ‘accessibility’ was measured using the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Version 2.1; and content ‘usability’ assessed using the usability heuristics for website design tool. Results Ninety-eight webpages from 34 websites were evaluated. No country assessed covered all themes analysed. Most provided information and some level of support regarding repatriation options; border control and re-entry measures; medical assistance; and traveller registration. Only three countries provided information or support for emergency housing while abroad, and six provided some form of mental health support for their citizens. Our analysis of the quality of COVID-19-related information available on a subset of four countries’ websites found poor readability and multiple accessibility and usability issues. Conclusion This study uniquely analyses government support for citizens stuck abroad during the COVID-19 pandemic. With large variance in the information and services available across the countries analysed, our results highlight gaps, inconsistencies, and potential inequities in support available, and raise issues pertinent to the quality, accessibility, and usability of information. This study will assist policymakers plan and communicate comprehensive support packages for citizens stuck abroad due to the COVID-19 situation and design future efforts to prepare for global public health emergencies.

Understanding the link between routine immunisation (RI) performance and vaccination during an epidemic can provide insights on health systems resilience and investments to strengthen health systems. We examined the relationship between RI performance and COVID-19 vaccination coverage in small island developing states (SIDS). We analysed immunisation and health system performance data in 55 SIDS. Our primary outcome was COVID-19 vaccination coverage at four timepoints (June 2021, December 2021, June 2022 and December 2022). We examined associations with coverage of six childhood immunisations (5-year mean annual coverage for 2015-2019), pandemic-related disruptions to RI, new vaccine introductions, health system performance measures, and economic and demographic characteristics. We calculated Spearman correlation coefficients (r) with p-values (p < 0.05 considered significant) and 95% confidence intervals for continuous variables and mean COVID-19 vaccination coverage by categorical variables. COVID-19 vaccination coverage was higher in countries that sustained pre-pandemic RI coverage during the pandemic, and where HPV, influenza and measles-containing (second dose) vaccines had been introduced. There were weak correlations (|r| < 0.4) between coverage of COVID-19 vaccination and RI, with a few exceptions of moderate correlations with the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine (June 2022: r = 0.421, p = 0.007; December 2022: r = 0.438, p = 0.005) and first dose of measles vaccine (December 2021: r = 0.420, p = 0.002). COVID-19 vaccination coverage was strongly correlated with the density of physicians (June 2021: 0.897, p < 0.001; December 2021: 0.785, p < 0.001) and moderately correlated with that of nurses and midwives (June 2021: 0.630, p = 0.001; December 2021: 0.605, p = 0.002). COVID-19 vaccination coverage was lower in SIDS with lower country income and development status. Countries that achieved high COVID-19 vaccination coverage also sustained RI coverage during the pandemic, demonstrating health system resilience. Our findings highlight the importance of having sufficient skilled health professionals and experience in introducing new vaccines targeting different age groups into national programs, particularly in small island settings.

The impact of COVID-19 international travel restrictions has to date, not been fully explored, and with the ongoing threat that new variants could potentially restrict movement further, it is important to consider the impacts that travel restrictions have on community members. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial impact of COVID-19 travel restrictions on those separated from their partners or immediate families, as well as temporary visa holders who were unable to migrate. Between 4 November 2021 to 1 December 2021, we executed a cross-sectional online survey targeting three specific groups; (1) those stranded from their partners; (2) those stranded from immediate families; and (3) temporary visa holders unable to migrate or cross international borders. We collected data on respondents' demographic profile; the nature of COVID-19-related travel impacts; depression, anxiety, and stress levels (using the validated DASS-21); and finally, data on respondents financial, employment and accommodation situation. 1363 respondents located globally completed the survey. 71.2% reported financial stress, 76.8% (x[MACRON]=11.57, SD = 5.94) reported moderate-to-extremely severe depression, 51.6% (x[MACRON]=6.80, SD = 5.49) moderate-to-extremely severe anxiety, and 62.6% (x[MACRON]=11.52, SD = 5.55) moderate-to-extremely severe stress levels. Statistically significant factors associated with moderate-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety, and stress included being female, chronic illness, and experiencing financial stress. Employment during COVID-19 -specifically essential services workers or unemployed-was associated with higher levels of anxiety and stress, with only essential workers being a predictor of higher stress severity. Factors that provided psychological protection included being older and having children. This study is one of the first to explore the impact COVID-19-related international travel restrictions have had on the financial status and psychological health of affected individuals. It highlights the significant human cost associated with the restrictions and identifies psychologically vulnerable populations. These results will help the design of targeted health and social policy responses.

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a global call for sex/gender-disaggregated data to be made available, which has uncovered important findings about COVID-19 testing, incidence, severity, hospitalisations, and deaths. This mini review scopes the evidence base for efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of COVID-19 vaccines from both experimental and observational research, and asks whether (1) women and men were equally recruited and represented in vaccine research, (2) the outcomes of studies were presented or analysed by sex and/or gender, and (3) there is evidence of sex and/or gender differences in outcomes. Following a PubMed search, 41 articles were eligible for inclusion, including seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 11 cohort studies, eight cross-sectional surveys, eight routine surveillance studies, and seven case series. Overall, the RCTs contained equal representation of women and men; however, the observational studies contained a higher percentage of women. Of 10 studies with efficacy data, only three (30%) presented sex/gender-disaggregated results. Safety data was included in 35 studies and only 12 (34%) of these presented data by sex/gender. For those that did present disaggregated data, overall, the majority of participants reporting adverse events were women. There is a paucity of reporting and analysis of COVID-19 vaccine data by sex/gender. Research should be designed in a gender-sensitive way to present and, where possible analyse, data by sex/gender to ensure that there is a robust and specific evidence base of efficacy and safety data to assist in building public confidence and promote high vaccine coverage.

Under the Global Programme to Eliminate Lymphatic Filariasis (LF), American Samoa conducted seven rounds of mass drug administration (MDA) from 2000-2006. The World Health Organization recommends systematic post-MDA surveillance using Transmission Assessment Surveys (TAS) for epidemiological assessment of recent LF transmission. We compared the effectiveness of two survey designs for post-MDA surveillance: a school-based survey of children aged 6-7 years, and a community-based survey targeting people aged ≥8 years. In 2016, we conducted a systematic school-based TAS in all elementary schools (N = 29) and a cluster survey in 28 villages on the two main islands of American Samoa. We collected information on demographics and risk factors for infection using electronic questionnaires, and recorded geo-locations of schools and households. Blood samples were collected to test for circulating filarial antigen (CFA) using the Alere Filariasis Test Strip. For those who tested positive, we prepared slides for microscopic examination of microfilaria and provided treatment. Descriptive statistics were performed for questionnaire variables. Data were weighted and adjusted to account for sampling design and sex for both surveys, and for age in the community survey. The school-based TAS (n = 1143) identified nine antigen-positive children and found an overall adjusted CFA prevalence of 0.7% (95% CI: 0.3-1.8). Of the nine positive children, we identified one microfilariaemic 7-year-old child. The community-based survey (n = 2507, 711 households) identified 102 antigen-positive people, and estimated an overall adjusted CFA prevalence of 6.2% (95% CI: 4.5-8.6). Adjusted village-level prevalence ranged from 0-47.1%. CFA prevalence increased with age and was higher in males. Of 86 antigen-positive community members from whom slides were prepared, 22 (25.6%) were microfilaraemic. School-based TAS had limited sensitivity (range 0-23.8%) and negative predictive value (range 25-83.3%) but had high specificity (range 83.3-100%) and positive predictive value (range 0-100%) for identifying villages with ongoing transmission. American Samoa failed the school-based TAS in 2016, and the community-based survey identified higher than expected numbers of antigen-positive people. School-based TAS was logistically simpler and enabled sampling of a larger proportion of the target population, but the results did not provide a good indication of the overall CFA prevalence in older age groups and was not sensitive at identifying foci of ongoing transmission. The community-based survey, although operationally more challenging, identified antigen-positive individuals of all ages, and foci of high antigen prevalence. Both surveys confirmed recrudescence of LF transmission.

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the psychological and financial distress reported by citizens and permanent residents stranded abroad due to international travel restrictions introduced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAn international cross-sectional study.SettingA primary analysis of data collected between July and September 2021 through an online survey targeting individuals stranded abroad and unable to return to their country of residence due to international travel restrictions.RespondentsA total of 1054 individuals aged 18–84 years.Data analysisMultivariable logistic regression models were used to explore the relationship between higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress and participant variables.Outcome measuresThe survey answered questions regarding COVID-19 travel restriction-related impacts: personal stress, anxiety and depression (using the validated 21-item Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) tool), as well as impacts on housing and financial security and demographic data.ResultsA total of 75.4% of respondents reported wanting to return to the Oceania region (75.4%), with 45% stranded in Europe. 64.2% reported financial distress while stranded abroad. 64.4% (x̄=9.43, SD=5.81) reported moderate-to-extremely severe (based on the DASS-21 classification) levels of depression, 41.7% for anxiety (x̄=5.46, SD=4.74), and 58.1% for stress (x̄=10.64, SD=5.26). Multivariable analysis indicated that financial stress, an employment change, being <30 years, having a high perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 abroad and being stranded for >2 months were significantly related to scores of moderate-to-extremely severe depression, anxiety and stress.ConclusionThe study is among the first to explore the psychological and financial distress-related impacts associated with being stranded abroad due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. It highlights a range of unintended consequences that arise from pandemic-related travel restrictions, identifies the health and social needs of a particularly vulnerable population, and provides clues as to the types of support that may be adopted to best support them.